Why do people vote against their own interests?

[DroppinScience]

The BBC has got an amazing commentary on what drives people to support the very things and people who are working against them. Read on:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

Choice quotes:

"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.

"It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."

If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.

They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.

There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.

As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.

[Documad]

I read What's the Matter with Kansas several years ago when it came out. It had some thought-provoking points, especially if you know people who grew up in Kansas or similar communities.

But re the article itself, I think it's difficult to know what's in someone else's interest. I prefer a higher quality of life (as defined by me) and I'm willing to put up with some government interference to make it happen. So I live in a community with fairly strict zoning laws. I like that my local government won't let my neighbor open a junkyard next door. But many people feel differently and they live in other places with less regulation. They value their freedom to live in a cinderblock house or a purple house.

We also underestimate how many Americans think they (or their kids) might be in an upper income bracket one day, even when it's highly unlikely.

[RobMoney$]

In America, it unfortunately has come to the point of voting for the lesser of two evils.

[yeahwho]

There has never been a candidate that encapsulates all of the qualities and expectations for every individual registered to vote. I do think the electorate uses the system in the correct way, even though the outside influence can at times be crushing.

I initially supported Dennis Kucinich this last election. Hilliary Clinton and Barack Obama were neck and neck with approval ratings each triple of Kucinich.

I switched to Obama in December of 2007 to help avert a Hilliary Clinton win. At that time Obama was the only candidate to stop Hilliary from what I felt would be 4 years of Bush Sr., 8 years of Bill Clinton, 8 years of Bush jr. then another 8 years of Clinton's? That is 28 years of two families running the interests of millions of families. It did not sit right in my mind having a two family dynasty for over half of my life ruling the USA and I felt compromised less by going with Obama.

Sorry Dennis Kucinich, you need to work on your popularity but you never do. So that is that.

[RobMoney$]

So you're telling me because she had the wrong last name you did whatever you could to prevent her from winning?

You sir, are an outstanding example of an American.
I'll bet all those men and women who gave their lives fighting for the freedoms you enjoy today are beaming with pride that you used your vote in spite.

[yeahwho]

So you're telling me because she had the wrong last name you did whatever you could to prevent her from winning?

You sir, are an outstanding example of an American.
I'll bet all those men and women who gave their lives fighting for the freedoms you enjoy today are beaming with pride that you used your vote in spite.

Better than being an judgmental asshole with 0 reading comprehension.

[RobMoney$]

I switched to Obama in December of 2007 to help avert a Hilliary Clinton win.


No, I'm pretty sure I comprehended you perfectly when you stated here that you voted for Obama because it was a vote against Hillary, and this percieved 2 family reign.

How completely myopic.

[travesty]

Lots of people vote against their own interests when they believe it will be better for society as a whole. I think Scott Brown is a clear example of this. I think many people voted for him not as much for his policies but just to restore some small semblance of balance between the parties in Congress.

[rirv]

So you're telling me because she had the wrong last name you did whatever you could to prevent her from winning?

You sir, are an outstanding example of an American.
I'll bet all those men and women who gave their lives fighting for the freedoms you enjoy today are beaming with pride that you used your vote in spite.

Immediately above you have said how unfortunate it is that it has come down to voting for the lesser of two evils. Why are you expressing such surprise and disgust when someone has stated they did exactly that? Were you not a McCain supporter because you decided rather than him being an outstanding candidate to lead the USA, it was better him than Obama?

Correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps I have misremembered your vitriol during the election and the 18 months since.

[yeahwho]

No, I'm pretty sure I comprehended you perfectly when you stated here that you voted for Obama because it was a vote against Hillary, and this percieved 2 family reign.

How completely myopic.

I voted for Obama because he was the Presidential candidate, I supported Obama because I did not want Hilliary Clinton to be nominated as the Presidential candidate.

Very perceptive, interesting detective work. You really ought to start some sort of detective/critic agency and investigate the other 66,882,229 voters, find out their motives then criticize them for being citizens.

[RobMoney$]

Immediately above you have said how unfortunate it is that it has come down to voting for the lesser of two evils. Why are you expressing such surprise and disgust when someone has stated they did exactly that? Were you not a McCain supporter because you decided rather than him being an outstanding candidate to lead the USA, it was better him than Obama?

Correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps I have misremembered your vitriol during the election and the 18 months since.

That's a fair criticism.
I just never voted for someone because I didn't like the other guy (or gal), and would never justify it like that. I would find something about a candidate to hang my hat on.
I liked McCain because I thought he was miles ahead of Obama on foreign policy and energy. I also thought he had enough experience and humbleness to pick qualified people to assist him with the issues he wasn't strong on, like the economy. I also thought McCain would have the better judgement for unforseen future issues.

During the primaries you have more than one choice on who to vote for.
During the Presidential election you have two candidates who have a realistic chance of winning, one Republican and one Democrat.
That's what was in my mind when I said "the lesser of two evils".

The last election, for the first time in my life I was forced to choose the lesser of two evils and vote for someone I wouldn't have voted for...the lesser of two evils.

Obama was not the direction I wanted to see the Democrats take, let alone the country take.
So far I'm correct, he's proven to have been a mistake.

[Documad]

I still think the premise of all this stuff is wrong. Like one of the examples in the article:

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

Yeah, the people in Texas might all be stupid, but isn't it possible that they don't believe healthcare reform is in their own interests? Or maybe they place greater importance on some other issue?

While I also talk in an oversimplified way and I probably tend to disagree with the values of the majority of voters in so-called red states, it's condescending to presume that I know what is in their interests better than they do. (even though I probably do :p)

[yeahwho]

That's a fair criticism.
I just never voted for someone because I didn't like the other guy (or gal), and would never justify it like that. I would find something about a candidate to hang my hat on.

During the primaries you have more than one choice on who to vote for.
During the Presidential election you have two candidates who have a realistic chance of winning, one Republican and one Democrat.
That's what was in my mind when I said "the lesser of two evils".

The last election, for the first time in my life I was forced to choose the lesser of two evils and vote for someone I wouldn't have voted for...the lesser of two evils.

Obama was not the direction I wanted to see the Democrats take, let alone the country take.
So far I'm correct, he's proven to have been a mistake.

You sir are pissing off all those people who fought for your freedoms. I hope we can see eye to eye now.

(only kidding, just thought I would give you a nice judgmental ass remark in a one dimensional tone... )

[DroppinScience]

Yeah, the people in Texas might all be stupid, but isn't it possible that they don't believe healthcare reform is in their own interests? Or maybe they place greater importance on some other issue?


I understand what you're getting at, but maybe we have a confusion over what we mean when we say "their own interests." What I take from an article such as this is that "their own interests" basically means "something that would benefit them and their families and potentially increase their quality of life." Even if they don't want health care reform, they probably would benefit from it if they were to get it, n'est pas?

[DroppinScience]

I liked McCain because I thought he was miles ahead of Obama on foreign policy and energy. I also thought he had enough experience and humbleness to pick qualified people to assist him with the issues he wasn't strong on, like the economy.

Not so sure about that...

"McCain's Top Campaign Adviser: Record Deficits Would Have Happened Under McCain, Too"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/01/mccains-top-campaign-advi_n_444458.html

[Documad]

Yeah, as pissed off as I've been at some of the things Obama has done, I've never for one second wished that McCain was in the white house instead.

[RobMoney$]

Not so sure about that...

"McCain's Top Campaign Adviser: Record Deficits Would Have Happened Under McCain, Too"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/01/mccains-top-campaign-advi_n_444458.html


Tell you what Lambert, I won't insult your intelligence linking any articles from Fox news commenting on Obama if you don't use anymore huffpo articles commenting on the GOP.

Both news sources are worthless.


BTW. File this under: If pigs had wings they could fly,...but they don't


And If McCain had been elected...
BUT HE WASN'T!

[drizl]

why vote at all? Look at what this country has become....it has nothing to do with your voting.

[DroppinScience]

Tell you what Lambert, I won't insult your intelligence linking any articles from Fox news commenting on Obama if you don't use anymore huffpo articles commenting on the GOP.

Both news sources are worthless.


BTW. File this under: If pigs had wings they could fly,...but they don't


And If McCain had been elected...
BUT HE WASN'T!

I'm only going by what McCain's own economic advisor says. He might know a thing or two about the economy....

[saz]

Tell you what Lambert, I won't insult your intelligence linking any articles from Fox news commenting on Obama if you don't use anymore huffpo articles commenting on the GOP.

Both news sources are worthless.




In an interview on MSNBC, Douglas Holtz-Eakin argued that under McCain's stewardship economic policy would have been strikingly different than under Obama -- with a much smaller stimulus bill and government expenditures going down as opposed to up.

But the former Congressional Budget Office director did acknowledge that, even with these changes, the country "probably would still have a record deficit" as is projected under the Obama administration.

The acknowledgment by Holtz-Eakin is a blow of sorts to the GOP argument that the record-breaking $1.56 trillion projected deficit is solely Obama's responsibility.

In actuality -- as most sober-minded economists attest -- many of the deficit problems the current administration faces today are traced directly back to the policies of its predecessors. This, indeed, seems to be implicit in Holtz-Eakin's acknowledgment.

In December 2009, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded that the then-$1.4 trillion annual deficit run by the government under Obama had much to do with the Bush administration's package of tax cuts, the wars it launched in Iraq and Afghanistan and its response to the recession.


the article was citing this interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35181507#35181507) with douglas holtz-eakin on msnbc today.

[Documad]

It doesn't count if he said it on MSNBC. I suspect Rob doesn't like them any better than Huffpo.

[RobMoney$]

I'm only going by what McCain's own economic advisor says. He might know a thing or two about the economy....


You can't really be this naive, can you?



Fortunately, we don't live in a world of "what if's".

[RobMoney$]

It doesn't count if he said it on MSNBC. I suspect Rob doesn't like them any better than Huffpo.


Actually, from my limited exposure to MSNBC from the election night of Scott Brown, MSNBC made FOXNews look like a legitimate news source.